- (1.) This matter comes up on the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition against the order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behrod, District Alwar in Sessions Case No.5/2008. By the aforesaid order, the learned trial court rejected the plea of the accused applicant regarding his being a juvenile as he is below 18 years of age and consequently entitled to the protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short the J.J. Act of 2000 ).
(2.) The registry has pointed out that the revision petition has been filed with the delay of 1041 days. It is for the condonation of the aforesaid delay and that the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed.
(3.) We have considered the application and the grounds stated therein seeking condonation of delay. So far as the right of the juvenile to claim the benefit of the J.J. Act of 2000 is concerned, it is now well settled that a person who claims to be a juvenile may claim the said benefit even in the appeal. In the case of Vaneet Kumar Gupta alias Dharminder v/s State of Punjab, 2009 17 SCC 587 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 7 of the report after considering the provisions of section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has held that it is manifest from a fair reading of the proviso provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this Act. ;